The crane on top of which this woman has climbed located "Place of Veterans Affairs North Africa," Antony is high thirty meters high. "The woman was made safe by firefighters who passed him a harness," said a police officer.

View video >> woman perched on the crane:
See the video
OFF AGAINST WOMEN perched CRANE ANTENNA RELAY
At the very end of the morning, firefighters were able to convince this woman down on land.

The protester had already undertaken a similar action in mid-October on his own roof to protest against the masts.

Is Electromagnetic Radiation Dangerous? How To Protect Yourself?

Tina Sieber

On 10th January, 2014

Can cell phones cause cancer after all? The media certainly knows how to screw with facts. How does radiation emitted by electronics really affect your body? Well, calm down! The truth is, we know too little to make definite claims, but some evidence and a lot of common sense suggests that you’d better be safe than sorry.

Are All Types Of Radiation Dangerous?

No! We are subject to natural radiation all day long, whether we’re indoors our outdoors. We are exposed to background radiation like terrestrial radiation, cosmic radiation, or Radon, a radioactive gas found predominantly in areas with natural occurrences of Radium. And then there is the sun, our most important natural source of radiation, i.e. sunlight. We are used to it, most of it is harmless, we even depend on it. What we have to be wary of is extensive exposure to radiation, whether it’s natural or artificial.

The energy emitted by electronics is non-ionizing radiation, meaning it does not have the capability to break chemical bonds. In other words, it doesn’t damage your DNA, which is a potential cause of cancer. While electromagnetic radiation cannot cause immediate damage, it does interact with our bodies, which can potentially lead to indirect damage, especially following long term exposure.

How Does Electromagnetic Radiation From Electronics Affect The Body?

Our bodies can absorb electromagnetic radiation as energy, meaning molecules in the tissue directly exposed to radiation get excited. In other words, they heat up. This is exactly what happens when we sunbathe. The molecules in our skin are excited by waves in the sunlight and thus sunshine feels warm on our skin.

Now, the heat caused by the non-ionizing spectrum of sunlight is considered harmless. Moreover, the energy emitted by electronic devices is magnitudes lower than that of the sun! Energy is directly proportional to the radiation’s frequency. Ultraviolet light — the kind that has a high potential to cause skin cancer — has a frequency of around 10 to the power of 16, while low intensity microwaves found with cell phones have a radiation of around 10 to the power of 9. This alone should put you at ease — but, not so fast.

During recent years, much attention has been given to the specific absorption rates (SAR) of cell phones and their effects on our health. SAR describes the amount of energy from radiation absorbed by the human body over a set amount of time. While manufacturers have to honor safety limits set by the FCC and many national governments, those values are somewhat arbitrary. We still don’t understand enough about the potential effects of electromagnetic radiation, both in terms of its interaction with biological material and the effects of its increasing and cumulative use.

The fact is, we are increasingly subjected to artificial electromagnetic radiation. We bathe in EMFs all day long, artificial electromagnetic radiation is emitted by a growing number of devices, and our relationships with these devices becomes more and more intimate. There is no way anyone can be sure of the outcome.

The way we use wireless technology today is radically different than how we used it a decade or two ago, when most of today’s devices didn’t even exist! It takes time to study long-term effects on the human body. Meanwhile, the use of technology — think Google Glass or Smart Watches — continues to evolve too quickly for mandatory long term scientific studies or regulatory agencies to keep up. I dare to say that this is an undisputable fact.

In the meantime, alarming reports remind us to be cautious, although studies by school kids should be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently, the report of cress seedlings dying when placed next to a WiFi router was based on an amateurish study that was biased and had other significant flaws. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is false, it just means it can’t be trusted.

Humans aren’t cress seeds, but we do keep wireless devices close to our bodies. If this is done over a long period of time, it could be damaging to our health, as some cases suggest.

Ironically, when I searched for scientific studies on the relation between cell phones and occurrences of cancer, I found a publication that discussed the use of widespread mobile technology in preventive health care. The authors speculate that delivering health information via cell phones could aid cancer prevention. So in the end, technology might do us more good than bad.

How Can You Protect Yourself From Electromagnetic Pollution?

Artificial electromagnetic radiation from electronics is prevalent in our environment. At current rates and given you don’t use electronic devices excessively, it is most likely harmless, at least for adults. However, if you have adopted habits that are potentially risky and experience symptoms that may be attributed to electromagnetic pollution, you can try some of the strategies below.

Mobile Phones

Avoid using your cell phone for calls when possible. Other times, keep calls short and use a headset. Avoid calls when the network signal is weak, as this is when your phone’s radiation is the strongest. If possible, don’t wear your phone close to your body or regularly switch where you keep it. Don’t keep your phone close by when you sleep or set it to airplane mode. Not only will this decrease the radiation emitted by your cell phone and potentially improve your sleep — if only for the lack of notifications — it will also save battery. Finally, look for a cell phone with a low SAR rating when purchasing your next one.

Cordless Home Phones

Make sure your DECT cordless phone reduces its signal power when the handheld is in idle mode or rests in the base station. Use the phone close to its base station. When its time comes, replace it with a corded phone or one that has lower radiation levels.

WiFi and Bluetooth

The strength of these wireless signals drops quickly over relatively short distances and thus the energy that reaches your body is extremely weak. Moreover, WiFi energy is considered non-thermal, meaning it does not cause heating of tissue. So technically, you don’t have to worry.

That said, children may be more vulnerable. If you are concerned, consider connecting to the Internet using an Ethernet cable, which would allow you to turn your wireless router off while it’s not needed by mobile devices. If your router must be always-on, place it at the maximum distance from your desk or bed that still allows you to get a reasonably strong signal. Again, based on what we know today, WiFi signals are harmless and it’s close to impossible to overdose on them.

Relax! Everything Will Be Fine

At this point, the science isn’t clear. I dare to say that this is mostly due to the fuzzy field within which research presently operates. The intimate use of technology is a very new development and biological systems are rather rigid. Consequently, we won’t see effects clearly for a long time, a phenomenon we know very well from climate change. By the time we can no longer deny the effects, the damage (if any!) is irreversible, at least for our children.

Our elders know that it’s better to be safe than sorry; it’s the precautionary principle we should all follow. Embrace technology, except don’t do it literally. Use it in reasonable doses, with caution, teach your children responsible use of technology, and everyone will be fine. Cell phones and other electronics do not cause health issues, unless overdosed. What’s far more damaging to your health is anxiety, so try to relax.

Are Cell Phones and Microwave Radiation Really Unhealthy?

Testing Shows Mixed Results, But Some Evidence is Clear

Dear EarthTalk: Could our health be negatively affected by all the radio frequencies being bandied about by cell phones and cell phone towers, wireless pagers and Internet systems, and other uses of radio frequency and microwave radiation?-- Beverly Filip, Santa Cruz, CA

Since the middle of the last century, technological advancements in telecommunications and other industries have led to significant increases in the use of radio frequencies. Equipment employing microwave and radio waves is today widely used not just in broadcasting and communications, but also in the health care industry, the food industry, and in a host of other industries in a wide range of applications.

Evidence Raises Concerns About Cell Phones and Microwave ExposureHealth advocates have worried for decades that exposure to frequencies emanating from these many sources might be harmful. And the ubiquity of such technology today--especially considering the quantum leap in cell phone usage in recent years--only makes such concerns that much more pressing.

How Do Cell Phones Affect Your Health?Various studies researching the health effects of cell phone use have yielded mixed results. Some studies suggested a link between exposure to radiation from cell phones and an increased risk of acoustic neuroma--a tumor of the nerve connecting the ear to the brain--but more recent research found no such links.

The issue is primarily heat. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Department of the Communication Workers of America (CWA), “As high frequency radio frequency radiation…penetrates the body, the exposed molecules move about and collide with one another causing friction and, thus, heat…If the radiation is powerful enough, the tissue or skin will be heated or burned.”

According to CWA, “there is substantial scientific data that establishes negative health effects associated with microwave radiation.” CWA cites cataracts as one possible negative health effect from prolonged exposure, as well as well as nervous system damage and even reproductive problems in both males and females. This issue was in the news in 1992 over the issue of the safety of police radar devices, but subsequent studies were inconclusive.

Young Cell Phone Users May See Negative Effects in Middle AgeAs to cell phones, the results of a study recently published in the academic journal Environmental Health Perspectives do not bode well for habitual chatterers. Researchers documented brain damage in laboratory rats exposed to radio frequencies from cell phones at levels comparable to what people would experience during normal use. The study’s authors expressed concern that “after some decades of (often) daily use, a whole generation of [cell phone] users may suffer negative effects, perhaps as early as middle age.”

How Do Cell Phones Affect the Environment?The environmental effects of radio frequencies are also largely unclear. Migrating birds have been known to fly right into cell phone and other communications towers. Some blame the radiation emanating from such towers for disorienting the birds and undermining their navigational abilities. Others chalk such incidents up to poor visibility associated with bad weather and nothing more.

Some farmers have observed that cows grazing near cell towers are more likely to experience still births, spontaneous abortions, birth deformities and behavioral problems, not to mention general declines in overall health. Moving cattle herds away from such towers has reportedly led to immediate health improvements.

On a south Mumbai rooftop, activists found six antennae at just "seven metres" from a neighbouring building.

"The DoT norms stipulate that the distance of an antenna from a neighbouring building should be a minimum of 20 metres," activist Prakash Munshi said. "In case of two antennae, this should be 35 metres, and in case of six, it should be 55 metres."

A complaint was sent to the DoT. Munshi said most cell towers had antennae clusters, leading to high power output and increased radiation risks.

Activist A V Shenoy said bunching of antennae was a serious issue in a city with a high population density, citing the Haji Ali area as an example. "Every mobile company will claim that it has installed a single antenna on the rooftop, but if you look at it collectively, you will find that five different companies have installed their antennae on the same building and this increases the radiation levels for the neighbourhood," he said.

Corporator Vinod Shelar, who is spearheading a campaign against illegal towers, threatened a massive dharna outside the municipal commissioner's office if his demand for a cell tower policy was ignored.

He said he wanted the municipal commissioner to bring up the draft cell tower policy for discussion before the civic improvements committee in a week. "It should be discussed in the BMC House and a resolution should be passed to weed out illegal towers in Mumbai," he said.

Activist Nikhil Desai said a significant number of illegal towers were not covered under litigation. "Why isn't the BMC razing these?" he said. "It only shows that officials have some vested interests."

He said that those claiming that cell towers pose no health risk should be asked to stay in buildings close to the towers.

Cellular operators said most towers had DoT nods besides 10 to 12 other certifications. "The BMC should clarify what is illegal according to it and then take action," a Cellular Operators Association of India representative said.

BMC DRAFT POLICY ON CELL SITES

* Only one tower should be allowed on every building

* Written consent of 70% of occupants as well as every person on topmost floor of the building mandatory

Mobile phones affect multiple sperm quality traits: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

As mobile phone usage is growing rapidly, there is a need for a comprehensive analysis of the literature to inform scientific debates about the adverse effects of mobile phone radiation on sperm quality traits. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of the eligible published research studies on human males of reproductive age. Eleven studies were eligible for this analysis. Based on the meta-analysis, mobile phone use was significantly associated with deterioration in semen quality (Hedges's g = -0.547; 95% CI: -0.713, -0.382; p < 0.001). The traits particularly affected adversely were sperm concentration, sperm morphology, sperm motility, proportion of non-progressive motile sperm (%), proportion of slow progressive motile sperm (%), and sperm viability. Direct exposure of spermatozoa to mobile phone radiation with in vitro study designs also significantly deteriorated the sperm quality (Hedges's g = -2.233; 95% CI: -2.758, -1.708; p < 0.001), by reducing straight line velocity, fast progressive motility, Hypo-osmotic swelling (HOS) test score, major axis (µm), minor axis (µm), total sperm motility, perimeter (µm), area (µm (2)), average path velocity, curvilinear velocity, motile spermatozoa, and acrosome reacted spermatozoa (%). The strength of evidence for the different outcomes varied from very low to very high. The analysis shows that mobile phone use is possibly associated with a number of deleterious effects on the spermatozoa.

Archos to show sub-$100 smartwatches at CES

Archos announced smartwatches starting at under £50 (US$83) and an Android tablet specially designed to make home automation a breeze.

The new smartwatches have a lean and thin design similar to products from Pebble, and will be compatible with Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android OS devices, Archos said in a statement. Smartwatches from Pebble are priced at $150.

The company did not provide availability information for the smartwatches, but products will be shown at the International CES trade show in Las Vegas between January 7 and 10.

Smartwatches are used in conjunction with smartphones to show messages, incoming calls, news, weather, social network posts and even webpages. Smartwatches are also being used as fitness trackers. Sony, Samsung and Qualcomm are among the top players in the smartwatch market today, and many companies are expected to show products at CES.

Archos’ Smart Home Tablet (Click to enlarge)

Archos also announced a lineup of “smart devices” that can gather and automate mundane home tasks. At the center of the lineup is the Smart Home Tablet, a 7-inch Android tablet that can chat with and set up actions for smart meters, plugs, lights, cameras, weather stations and other connected devices. For example, the tablet can be used to activate cameras or switch on lights if a motion sensor captures movement.

To complement the tablet, Archos announced a new weather station that can capture temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide levels, humidity and other environmental information. The monitor can be used indoors or outdoors. The company will also show a connected camera, smart plug and motion tracker at CES.

The tablet can also aggregate information from Android and iOS mobile devices, Archos said.

Archos also announced wearable fitness trackers that can be used to set health goals. The Blood Pressure Monitor can monitor heart activity and pressure, the Activity Tracker functions like a pedometer and the Connected Scale measures weight and body-fat ratio. An Archos app called Connected Self App aggregates information from the health monitors to analyze health activity and set up fitness goals.

The new Archos products are among the first to be based on Bluetooth 4.1, also called Bluetooth Low Energy, which was formally adopted by device makers this month.

"The prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbance (23.5%) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than controls: (10%), (5%), (5%), (0%), (8.8%) and (10%), respectively (P < 0.05). Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition. So, revision of standard guidelines for public exposure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas and using of NBTB for regular assessment and early detection of biological effects among inhabitants around the stations are recommended."

Comment: Within this research, the people were in the same building with antennas on the roof or in the opposite building (=very close to the radiation source). This caused a variety of symptoms. The study did not have radiation power density values included.

"For the five health scores used, no differences in their medians were observed for exposed versus non-exposed participants. People who attributed adverse health effects to mobile phone base stations reported significantly more sleep disturbances and health complaints, but they did not report more headaches or less mental and physical health. Individuals concerned about mobile phone base stations did not have different well-being scores compared with those who were not concerned. In this large population-based study, measured RF-EMFs emitted from mobile phone base stations were not associated with adverse health effects."

"In the initial phase, reported on in this paper, 30,047 persons from a total of 51,444 who took part in the nationwide survey also answered questions on how mobile phone base stations affected their health. A list of 38 health complaints was used. A multiple linear regression model was used to identify predictors of health complaints including proximity of residence to mobile phone base stations and risk perception. RESULTS: Of the 30,047 participants (response rate 58.6%), 18.7% of participants were concerned about adverse health effects of mobile phone base stations, while an additional 10.3% attributed their personal adverse health effects to the exposure from them. Participants who were concerned about or attributed adverse health effects to mobile phone base stations and those living in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station (500 m) reported slightly more health complaints than others. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of the German population is concerned about adverse health effects caused by exposure from mobile phone base stations. The observed slightly higher prevalence of health complaints near base stations can not however be fully explained by attributions or concerns."

Comment: Those who were not concerned about base stations still reported more health problems close to the base station than people living more far away.

"The performed studies showed the relationship between the incidence of individual symptoms, the level of exposure, and the distance between a residential area and a base station. This association was observed in both groups of persons, those who linked their complaints with the presence of the base station and those who did not notice such a relation."

"A descriptive spatial analysis of the BSs and the cases of death by neoplasia identified in the municipality was performed through an ecological-epidemiological approach, using georeferencing. ... Between 1996 and 2006, 7191 deaths by neoplasia occurred and within an area of 500m from the BS, the mortality rate was 34.76 per 10,000 inhabitants. Outside of this area, a decrease in the number of deaths by neoplasia occurred. The greatest accumulated incidence was 5.83 per 1000 in the Central-Southern region and the lowest incidence was 2.05 per 1000 in the Barreiro region. During the environmental monitoring, the largest accumulated electric field measured was 12.4V/m and the smallest was 0.4V/m. The largest density power was 40.78uW/cm(2), and the smallest was 0.04uW/cm(2). ... The mortality rates and the relative risk were higher for the residents inside a radius of 500 m from the BS, compared to the average mortality rate of the entire city, and a decreased dose-response gradient was observed for residents who lived farther away from the BS

"The mean radiation measurements of the groups exposed at most in Selbitz (1.2 V/m) was substantially higher than the mean radiation of the study population studied in the QUEBEB study (1) of the German mobile telephone research program (Deutsches Mobilfunkforschungsprogramm DMF, established mean value DMF 0.07 V/m). A significant correlation was found dependent on dose-effects for insomnia, depressions, cerebral symptoms, joint illnesses, infections, skin changes, heart and circulation disorders, and disorders of the optical and acoustic sensory systems and the gastro-intestinal tract with objectively determined locations of exposure, which can be related by the influence of microwaves on the human nervous system."

"In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area."

"The study subjects comprised 500 people from 5 regions of the city of Lodz, living in houses located at the distances of up to 50 m, 50-100m, 100-150m, 150-200m and over 200m from the base station. The distance from base station is the estimated value of exposure to EMF. There were 181 (36.2%) men aged 46.2 29.0 years and 319 (63.8%) women aged 50.117.0 years....A significant relationship was found to occur between the frequency of some symptoms and the distance from the base station. Everyday headaches were most frequent in respondents living at the distance 100-150 m from the base station in comparison with subjects living in farther distances. Differences were statistically significant (p=0,013). Symptoms of depression were most frequently reported by people living at the distance 50-100 m (23,3%) and over 200 m (21,3%). Differences were at the borderline of statistical significance (p=0.059). It seems important to note that only 1.8% of subjects reported their concern about possible harmful effects of the base stations."

Comment: A German report about children and how the microwave exposure affects. Generally, there was no consistent picture between measured exposure and symptoms. Starting from page 160: Children who daily used mobile or DECT phones showed signs of chronic nausea. Youngsters who lived 500 m or closer to a base station showed increased nausea. Wi-Fi exposure was associated to chronical discomfort and irritability feeling (Angst).

"Total HF-EMF and exposure related to mobile telecommunication were far below recommended levels (max. 4.1 mW/m²). Distance from antennae was 24-600 m in the rural area and 20-250 m in the urban area. Average power density was slightly higher in the rural area (0.05 mW/m²) than in the urban area (0.02 mW/m²). Despite the influence of confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to HF-EMF from the base station, there was a significant relation of some symptoms to measured power density; this was highest for headaches. Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels. There was no significant effect on sleep quality. CONCLUSION: Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms of action at these low levels are unknown."

Comment: Hutter et al indicated that the radiation average in cities was 0,02 mW/m² = 20 µW/m². In larger cities these values are (unfortunately) often in thousands of µW/m². The interesting question is: Does mobile phone use and base station exposure explain the general increase of migraine and headaches?

"Cancer incidence was not found to be elevated in municipalities with cellular telephone relay stations. The cancer incidence was highly variable in areas without any relay station. The mean age of cancer patients living in towns with relay stations was comparable to that of patients living in villages and towns far away from any relay station. Cancer occurrence in special tumour sites thought to be sensible for radiation effects did not show an association with the locations of the cellular telephone infrastructure."

Comment: Authors did not find a connection between cancer and base stations in Bavaria, Germany. The cancer registry in Bavaria was quite new. What is strange is that Meyer et al. did not include the Bavarian (Bayern) city of Naila in their research à See Eger et al. (2004) above.

"A health survey was carried out in Murcia, Spain, in the vicinity of a Cellular Phone Base Station working in DCS-1800 MHz. This survey contained health items related to "microwave sickness" or "RF syndrome." The microwave power density was measured at the respondents' homes. Statistical analysis showed significant correlation between the declared severity of the symptoms and the measured power density. The separation of respondents into two different exposure groups also showed an increase of the declared severity in the group with the higher exposure."

Comment: The average power density value close to base stations in the study of Navarro et al. was 0.11 µW/cm² = 1100 µW/m². That radiation level caused various symptoms.

"A survey study was conducted, using a questionnaire, on 530 people (270 men, 260 women) living or not in proximity to cellular phone base stations. Eighteen different symptoms (Non Specific Health Symptoms-NSHS), described as radiofrequency sickness, were studied by means of the chi-square test with Yates correction. The results that were obtained underline that certain complaints are experienced only in the immediate vicinity of base stations (up to 10 m for nausea, loss of appetite, visual disturbances), and others at greater distances from base stations (up to 100 m for irritability, depressive tendencies, lowering of libido, and up to 200 m for headaches, sleep disturbances, feeling of discomfort). In the 200 m to 300 m zone, only the complaint of fatigue is experienced significantly more often when compared with subjects residing at more than 300 m or not exposed (reference group). For seven of the studied symptoms and for the distance up to 300 m, the frequency of reported complaints is significantly higher (P < 0.05) for women in comparison with men. Significant differences are also observed in relation to the ages of subjects, and for the location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors."

Comment: This document did not include power density measurements, only discussed how the distance affects. Interesting was that within 10 meter distance (base station on the roof) there were symptoms like nausea, loss of appetite, visual disturbances. So, very close to then antenna the symptoms seem to be different from symptoms experienced at a greater distance.

"Results - The results showed that most of the symptoms such as nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbance, memory loss and lowering of libido were statistically significant in the inhabitants living near the BTS antenna less than 300 m distances) compared to those living far from the BTS antenna ( more than 300 m). Conclusion - It is suggested that cellular phone BTS antenna should not be sited closer than 300 m to populations to minimize exposure of neighbors."

Objective: To investigate the association between past exposure to RF/MW transmitters and cancer risks, taking into account familial cancer history, occupational exposures and indicators of life-style. Methods: We carried out a population-based case-control study involving 307 residents, of whom 47 were diagnosed between 1989 and 2007 with different types of cancer and 260 controls. Cancer diagnoses were obtained from medical the records. Exposure status of individual houses were determined from a map, based on the distances between each house and RF/MW antennas, and were calculated using geographic information systems (GIS) toolsConclusion: There was evidence for an increased risk of cancers which were associated with chemicals in manufacturing and agriculture and electronics, where there may have been exposures to EMF, but the study did not confirm the suspicion of increased cancer risks associated with radiation for most cancer types in this village. Misclassification of past exposures could explain the negative finding.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21873036

Augner C. & Hacker, G.W. (2009). Are people living next to mobile phone base stations more strained? Relationship of health concerns, self-estimated distance to base station, and psychological parameters. Indian Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, 13(3):141-5.

"Background: Despite the fact that adverse health effects are not confirmed for exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RFEMF) levels below the limit values, as defined in the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, many persons are worried about possible adverse health effects caused by the RF-EMF emitted from mobile phone base stations, or they attribute their unspecific health complaints like headache or sleep disturbances to these fields. Method: In the framework of a cross-sectional study a questionnaire was sent to 4150 persons living in predominantly urban areas. Participants were asked whether base stations affected their health. Health complaints were measured with standardized health questionnaires for sleep disturbances, headache, health complaints and mental and physical health. 3,526 persons responded (85%) to the questionnaire and 1,808 (51%) agreed to dosimetric measurements in their flats. Exposure was measured in 1,500 flats. Results: The measurements accomplished in the bedrooms in most cases showed very low exposure values, most often below sensitivity limit of the dosimeter. An association of exposure with the occurrence of health complaints was not found, but an association between the attribution of adverse health effects to base stations and the occurrence of health complaints."

Comment: Strange language about ICNIRP guidance levels and strange selection of a meter. The dosimetric measurements should perhaps measure also low-level electric and magnetic fields + transients. The base station may cause power quality problems in the whole house, not only in the apartment below antennas.

"This long-term study over one and a half years shows a significant activation of the 60 participants adrenergic systems after the installation of a regional mobile telephone transmitting station in the village of Rimbach (Bavaria). The values of the stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline grow significantly during the first six months after starting the GSM transmitter; the values of the precursor substance dopamine decreases substantially after the beginning of the radiation ...The effects show a dose effect relation and are situated far under the valid limits for technical high-frequency stress. Chronic dysregulations of the catecholamine system have a substantial health relevance and cause health damages in the long run."

"In a remote part of a town in Westphalia, from 2000 to 2007 the cancer incidence within a 400-metre radius of a mobile telephone transmitting station was ascertained by a door-to-door survey. The data based on interviews with 575 inhabitants showed a statistically significant raise of the cancer incidence five years after the transmitting station had been started."

"Objective: To investigate the risk of early childhood cancers associated with the mother's exposure to radiofrequency from and proximity to macrocell mobile phone base stations (masts) during pregnancy. Design: Case-control study. ... Results: Mean distance of registered address at birth from a macrocell base station, based on a national database of 76890 base station antennas in 1996-2001,was similar for cases and controls (1107 (SD 1131)mv 1073 (SD 1130) m, P=0.31), as was total power output of base stations within 700 m of the address (2.89 (SD 5.9) kW v 3.00 (SD 6.0) kW, P=0.54) and modelled power density (-30.3 (SD 21.7) dBm v -29.7 (SD 21.5) dBm, P=0.41). ... Conclusions: There is no association between risk of early childhood cancers and estimates of the mother's exposure to mobile phone base stations during pregnancy".

Comment: The power density values were modelled, not measured. No picocells or microcells (closest transmitters to mothers) were included. The overall RF exposure of mothers and children to DECT-base stations and mobile phones was not included. Powerwatch provided also a comment about the modelling work of Elliott et al.: http://powerwatch.org.uk/news/20100623_cancer_phone_mast_bmj.asp.

"Studying effects of mobile phone base station signals on health have been discouraged by authoritative bodies like WHO International EMF Project and COST 281 ...From available evidence it is impossible to delineate a threshold below which no effect occurs, however, given the fact that studies reporting low exposure were invariably negative it is suggested that power densities around 0.5-1 mW/m² must be exceeded in order to observe an effect. The meager data base must be extended in the coming years. The difficulties of investigating long-term effects of base station exposure have been exaggerated, considering that base station and handset exposure have almost nothing in common both needs to be studied independently. It cannot be accepted that studying base stations is postponed until there is firm evidence for mobile phones."

"Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not highter than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 µW/cm² or 1 µW/m², which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002."

Follow by Email

Followers

About Me

While I have always been extremely health conscious and am presently in excellent health, I did become temporarily out-of-commission (i.e. I was really sick) in 2005 with a number of at the time unexplainable symptoms. I was quite puzzled at the time because I had been eating mainly organically grown food, drinking spring water, doing Yoga every morning, and going to the gym several times a week. In other words, I was doing everything one is supposed to do to stay healthy. I was not supposed to get sick. It took me six months before discovering or even imagining the main source of the problem - which was in fact "overexposure to electromagnetic" - especially microwave - radiation. I was living within 200 meters of two cell phone towers at the time and within 500 meters of a 3rd one with numerous WiFi signals bleeding into my apartment from adjacent neighbors. I developed a host of symptoms, which are found in what has been misleadingly described as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) -- but much more accurately described as Radio Wave or Microwave Sickness. Large numbers of people in the USA suddenly started getting sick in 1984...